DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-23, 25 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2008/0261558 (Enriquez).
As to claim 22, Enriquez teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a telephone network, from a mobile device, at least one telephone call that comprises at least one dialed telephone number comprising at least one code (facilitator 14 of carrier 16 received SMS from device 12a sent to shortcode, see paragraphs 22-23 and 34-35);
generating, by the processor, a billing record associated with the mobile device (see paragraphs 36 and 41); and
initiating, by the processor, a payment to a third-party based at least in part on the billing record (if transferee is an existing user, facilitator facilitates transfer of money to recipient 12b, see paragraphs 34-36).
As to claim 23, Enriquez further teaches wherein the receiving the at least one telephone call is in accordance with at least one of:a mobile originating cellular communications protocol or a communications protocol of a transmission control protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP) suite (see paragraphs 21-23).
As to claim 25, Enriquez further teaches wherein at least one telephone call is associated with an identity comprising at least one of: a cellular identity or derived from the cellular identity (see paragraphs 35-36).
As to claim 28, Enriquez further teaches wherein the at least one telephone network is configured to accept at least one part of the at least one dialed telephone number as request-related charge to be applied to a cellular account (see paragraphs 27-34, shortcode includes numbers indicating how much money is to be transferred).
As to claim 29, Enriquez further teaches wherein the at least one telephone call comprises at least one of: a Telephony call setup request, a Short Message Service request, or an Unstructured Supplementary Services Data request (see paragraph 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enriquez in view of US 2012/0278214 (Kumar et al.).
As to claim 24, what is explicitly lacking form Enriquez is wherein at least one telephone call is associated with at least one of: an access-restricted internet content or an access-restricted internet service.
In analogous art, Kumar teaches an analogous method in which request is to pay for access restricted internet service/content (see Kumar, paragraphs 56 and 61-62).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Enriquez so as to enhance what the user of the mobile device can pay for using carrier billing.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enriquez in view of US 2015/0052034 (Kim et al.).
As to claim 26, what is explicitly lacking form Enriquez is wherein the cellular identity is one of:an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI), a cryptographically hashed IMSI,a Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number (MSISDN), or a cryptographically hashed MSISDN.
In analogous art, Kim teaches an analogous method in which the cellular identity is an MSISDN (see Kim, figure 5B, step 114).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Enriquez so as to use a well known cellular identity to identify the mobile device.
Claims 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enriquez in view of US 2003/0156697 (Svercek).
As to claim 27, what is explicitly lacking form Enriquez is wherein the at least one telephone call comprises symbolically prefixed address signals specifying the at least one code.
In analogous art, Svercek teaches a vertical service code (~shortcode of Enriquez) being symbolically prefixed (see Svercek, paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Enriquez so as to make the code more transparent to both the user and network.
As to claim 30, what is explicitly lacking form Enriquez is wherein the at least one telephone call comprises at least one hook flash protocol.
In analogous art, Svercek teaches a vertical service code (~shortcode of Enriquez) being sent using hook flash protocol (see Svercek, paragraphs 11 and 13).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Enriquez so as to make the code more transparent to both the user and network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0363776 (Gomez et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641